Subject:
|
Re: Longest train, eh? (was: Two Easy Questions about Rolling Stock)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:52:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
972 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Tony Hafner writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Tony Hafner writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > I followed most of the PNLTC
> > discussions in august 2000, but it seems I have completely missed the longest
> > train in the report then.
>
> I don't think we mentioned this particular record at the time. We don't
> have it documented and I'm totally going from memory.
You really try to tell me you put a record train to track and have not
documented it? That's too bad... How are we supposed to break your record, when
we do not know what numbers are to beat?
FGLTC records are quite clear:
1. - put more than 108 identical waggons onto track
or
2. - make one or several engines (all placed at the head of the train) pull
more than 126 waggons for at least one complete loop. (Train has to use
original Lego magnet couplings, glue and lubrication are forbidden)
> > Our 127 waggons have had a length of 127x(16+3)studs x 8mm/stud= 19,30 m =
> > 63,33 feet
> > If you have been able to do your loop with 50% of 150 feet, you would have • that
> > record for sure too....
>
> No, the *loop* was more like 240 feet or so. I mean that the *train* was
> somewhere around 150 feet. The layout was 90 by 40 feet, and the outer loop
> did the whole perimeter.
Oh, I understood your posting before in a way, that you had a 150 ft train, but
only a shortened train (my guessing: at least half of the 150 ft) was able to
do the complete loop. Sorry my misunderstanding...
> Again, it's not well documented. I shouldn't have mentioned it because I
> really can't support it. I'm probably going to receive a flogging from the
> club now!
I hope they will not expell you: ;-))
> We had something like 5 straights between each curve on the corners and that
> probably made a huge difference. It still wasn't enough, though. I know a
> number of things we'd do differently if we were to try this again.
We worked with just one straight part between curved parts.
> > Could you bring out, exactely how many cars / how much lenght that has been:
> > I wasn't able to find that right now mentioned in any of the august 2000
> > postings. And second question: have you used just engines at the front of the
> > train?
>
> I'll see if I can find out the train's makeup. I don't have that info
> myself. As far as engines go, they were in the front, the back, the middle...
Ok, so there is one important think on our "record": we have tried to work with
front engines only, which limits the length more evidently than multi engine
driving. The latter is basically a question of amount of transformers and
engines as far as I can imagine.
> > I would not have forseen any trouble for a much longer train with more • engines spread
> > between the waggon. Maybe one has to use just lots of engines: every 10 • waggons
> > an extra engine (+ lots of transformers) might help to fix the problem and
> > make a "endless" train possible?
> > But - as said - we never tested that...
>
> Since we were using mostly MOC stuff, there was a huge variety in cars. So
> using a simple rule like one engine per 10 cars didn't work- the variance in
> friction made engine distribution more complex.
And do not forget age of cars: old ones can have really high friction when they
had a running time of several weeks in total. But same for brand new axles: I
heared from some friends around that some new wheel sets have problems with
quite high friction and bended metal axles....
> That probably would work for a mess of identical cars, or at least for a
> mess of cars with the same wheel arrangement and approximate weight.
Just say: for idial identical motors (they are never like that) the waggons
behind should have in sum the same frictional forces.
Kind Regards,
Ben
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
